Letter to the Cecil Whig editor regarding Cecil CAN (Citizen Action Network).

Cecil County Government has a 2010 Comprehensive Plan that outlines high density growth development in Elkton and North East with the projected impact. The plan also presents the idea of “Community Character” that creates a sense of place. In North East, the Community Character consists of recreational activities with marinas, a State park, boating, camping, shopping and dining on Main Street. Chesapeake Club in North East, was a golf course community with beautiful homes, landscaped gardens, and paths. Since the course closed and was sold, the grounds have become overgrown and unattractive. The Cecil County Planning Commission along with out of town Developers have approved a preliminary plan for the Chesapeake Club community that would add 401 new homes, 100 townhouses and 228 apartments. Their sense of place for Chesapeake Club does not appear to be aligned with why existing residents moved here. Because of this, the Cecil CAN(Citizen Action Network) was formed and mobilized and has Facebook presence for more information.

The apartments would be shoehorned into a tract of land between Delaplane and what had been the golf course 17th fairway. In the preceding plat of 1987, the original plan for apartments were to be built along Irishtown Road, not route 272. Current residents along the fairway were told by their developers that the land behind them would not be developed, but a buffer to Delaplane.

Traffic volume would greatly increase with approximately 1,500 additional vehicles crawling through Main St. to get to the development. The Comprehensive plan expected traffic during peak hour congestion to worsen.

The schools are very near or at maximum capacity. Parents and teachers at the January Planning Commission meeting were quick to point that out. A new North East high school is planned to be built in the future.

At the Planning Commission’s meeting on February 22nd, the Commission voted to approve the Concept Plan. The next step for the Commission and Developers is the presentation of a Preliminary Plan. At this point, the concerns of the community will have to be addressed. It would be beneficial if all the parties involved, including the residents, could meet prior to the next Planning Commission meeting to discuss the schools, traffic, relocating the apartments, and incorporating complementary recreational elements for a new “sense of place” that would make Chesapeake Club an attractive place to live.

Ginny Jackson

North East, MD

Ms. Hornberger,

In addition to my personal disappointment, I am writing to express serious concerns with the spread of misinformation following the release of your proposed budget last month.

It appears that you are resorting to a desperate campaign of lies and half-truths in an effort to rebut perceived challenges by me, the Board, and CCPS staff regarding your fiscal mismanagement and overall lack of understanding of CCPS operations. Your public attacks on our Board and Superintendent, a highly qualified and experienced professional who works tirelessly for our students and staff, are cowardly and misguided. Having observed the last three years of your service as County Executive, it is apparent that your goal is to advance your individual self interests no matter the costs, including the weakening of our public education system and, by extension, our entire county. It is shameful.

I recently received many validated reports that you have contacted community members, CCPS staff, and even one of our Board members (whose campaign you funded) in an attempt to spread misinformation and sow division. For example, you recently met with a high school English teacher. You reached out to her on Facebook Messenger after she posted thoughts on the CCPS FY24 Budget, and you offered to meet with her to give her “all the facts.” According to the teacher, you told her numerous lies during the meeting, including that you offered the school system hundreds of thousands of dollars as a compromise on the condition that it be used to reduce class sizes, but the offer was refused because the Board demanded the total amount or nothing at all. This is false.

The actual record reveals the depth of your deception. The Board approved and submitted our budget request in February. As you finalized your budget, you responded to our request with purported “offers” that were unworkable and illusory. However, one thing is clear–at no point did we refuse any amount that would increase our operating budget. We would be thrilled to receive any funding over maintenance of effort (MOE), and any statement to the contrary (including that the Board wanted “all or nothing”) is untrue. In fact, there were only two pieces that were refused:

1. You offered to provide money for non-recurring expenses instead of increasing operating funding over the amount that was received last fiscal year. Specifically, you wanted to provide money for technology so that we could in turn “free up” some operating money to fund extra positions. This offer was misleading, and it would obviously put us in an unfavorable position next year (right before a primary election), at which point you could then plan to release a portion of an education lock-box to “save us” from our “misuse of funds.” While it may have provided you an opportunity to save the day, it would not have been prudent for us to add more long-term obligations (new positions) under the disguise you proposed. We always strive to be transparent with our staff, families, and community, and accepting your “offer” would have been inconsistent with that commitment.

2. Any “offer” on your part was contingent on me, as the representative of the Board, releasing a joint favorable media statement with you so that you could publicly benefit. In fact, on different occasions, Lawrence Scott emphasized that any offer to provide funding greater than MOE would only occur with the presupposition of a joint press release in which the Board Office publicly thanked the County Executive. We believe any such joint press release is self-serving and political in nature, and the quid pro quo nature of this offer is not tenable.

The theme of ‘quid pro quo’ of budget negotiations with the County was born in a meeting that occurred with you, me, Dr. Lawson, and Mr. Scott at an Elkton eatery on February 8, 2023, at 2:30pm. At this meeting, you and Mr. Scott repeatedly mentioned that “we’ve got money.” (The specific details of the county’s finances were not released until later in February, when the county finally published its FY22 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.) During this meeting, you and Mr. Scott made it clear that it was important to provide opportunities for you to be in the spotlight due to the upcoming election, and you both indicated that “We have to do something to make Danielle look good.” When Dr. Lawson offered to host a public forum with the County Council on the school system’s work on reviewing potential objectionable books, the response was, “That will be something that’s too easy for Council to get credit for.”

How could any of your words and actions lead me to believe that you have good intentions for our school system and our students when a significant amount of the funding needed to support our students is dependent on the school system making an elected official “take credit for things” and “look good?” Your “negotiations” were not done in good faith and were all based on chicanery in an attempt to win voters. Yet, you publicly accuse us of malfeasance?

To you, it seems that this is all about politics and doing what you need to do to “look good” and get votes. To you, it appears to be a game–a game that involves dishonesty; taking credit and promoting yourself; using fund balance to give rebate checks to real property owners conveniently before an election (instead of using operating fund balance to invest in community resources); deceitfully marking these rebates as “decreased revenue” instead of expenses (so Council has no authority to affect it); and winning votes. To me, this is about education and supporting our students. When it comes to providing the resources that our students need and deserve, it is not a game–nor should it be. As I have said before, do not use our students as political pawns.

As we move forward preparing future budgets, I ask that you be open and honest about the decisions you make. I will continue to do the same. We owe that much to the families and students of Cecil County.

Sincerely,

Diana Hawley

Diana Hawley, President

Board of Education

Cecil County Public Schools

NORTH EAST — As a proposed 726 unit development project lurks on the former Chesapeake Club golf course’s horizon in North East, concerned citizens in Cecil County have mobilized as the Cecil County Action Network (CCAN). CCAN, founded by Alexis Bazzoli, hopes to ensure that all development in the county meets the needs of residents.

“We don’t want Cecil County to never be developed, we want it to be developed on our terms so that our future generations can benefit from the land and the area the same way we have all enjoyed,” said one the group’s co-founders, Mike Welker.

The plans that caught CCAN’s attention were proposed by a Maryland based real-estate development company, Stonewall Capital. The plans look to utilize the former Chesapeake Club golf course and the surrounding area for a development consisting of 401 single family homes, 100 townhomes and 228 apartment units – adding over 720 units to the existing 356 units in the area.

The owner and lead developer of Stonewall Capital, Ray Jackson, who is also the developer of the Southfields project in Elkton, says the 726 unit plan is a reduction of what the land is capable of holding.

“The property is slated for 1450 (units) but instead of building 1450 units like I am approved to do, I went to the county government to see what they think would be best and I was asked to reduce the size. So I did,” said Jackson.

Jackson noted that his original downsize was a proposal of 1,00 units which the county asked be lowered to 750 units.

Regardless of the reduction, CCAN fears that a development of over 700 units will still have an impact on the area, specifically the traffic.

“Across from this proposed development is another micro subdivision so you’re going to have two very busy turn-ins right across the street from each other on a very narrow road,” said Welker. “We want Stonewall themselves to do a traffic study and disclose their findings.”

For a development project of any size, a traffic study needs to be completed and implemented by the developers before any building is approved or permits are issued.

Prior to a traffic study, a “scoping meeting” needs to be held with the developer, the municipality responsible for the developed land and the state highway administration to determine all of the factors of the study and the scope of the findings.

For the Chesapeake Club development, Jackson said he has hired Lenhart Traffic to conduct the study.

“There has been a bit of confusion as the county and school system also hired Lenhart Traffic to conduct a study, but they are two separate and distinct studies,” said Jackson. “They are not the same as ours.”

Jackson noted that after the study is complete, he will disclose the findings.

“Yes, the traffic is bad and we have to deal with it and hopefully when we design this, we hope to make the traffic better,” said Jackson. “It is the responsible thing to do and the people of the community need to have this information, they deserve to know.”

But CCAN’s concerns do not stop there. Welker said that the current infrastructure in the county is outdated and is a cause of concern for the group, as Cecil County is rapidly growing.

“The current plat for the Chesapeake Club is from 1987 and Cecil County has grown a lot in the last 35 years and I think that is the biggest problem,” said Welker.

The impact of a large development like the Chesapeake Club will affect schools, first responders, water and sewer – factors Jackson said he evaluates before even buying development sites.

The evaluation of a site, Jackson explained, is through an “adequate facilities” study to make sure the property has proper water, sewer, schools and first responder resources.

“The property was already approved so this project has been counted on to accommodate 1450 units,” said Jackson. “We have the proper water and the proper sewer and we will definitely have to make improvements to traffic and we acknowledge that.”

Once the traffic study is completed and implemented Jackson says Stonewall Capital will need to complete a Site Development Plan for road construction designs, engineering and stormwater management – an aspect CCAN was able to connect Jackson and the Cecil Land Trust on to ensure the stormwater is handled correctly.

“The Site Development Plan alone will take a minimum of six to nine months to complete so realistically, we are looking to actually start construction in about a year,” said Jackson.

Throughout the Chesapeake Club’s development, and every development to come into Cecil County after, CCAN plans to ensure that residents of Cecil County are heard and development is implemented to accommodate their needs.

“We are going to high-up every development project in Cecil County to make sure it is being done in a way that makes sense,” said Welker.

“Cecil County has valuable land in a valuable location,” Welker continued. “Our vision is Cecil County becoming an advocacy, so that way we have a voice and we can negotiate with developers directly.”